I picked this biography of A.W. Pink up at a used book sale for $.50. I really enjoyed reading it, while Pink’s life was certainly not ‘action packed’ his trials and triumphs can serve to edify, challenge and instruct the reader.

Pink had a very unique personality and seeing how he dealt with the various events of his life is very interesting. The author does good job digging up the details of his entire life even though it is clear that for certain periods little or nothing is known. We find that one reason for this is because of Pink’s humbleness and desire for all of the glory to go to God.

Much of the biography naturally relates to the ‘Sovereignty of God’, both Pink’s teaching on the doctrine and it’s effects on his life. At times we see Pink accepting and searching for God’s sovereign will in his life and at others almost pushing against it. In relating the events at the end of Pink’s pastorate in South Carolina Belcher brings forth the insight:

“That seems to be a problem in many areas of theology–we can learn the doctrine in its definition, but then the practical learning of applying it to real life is not so easy”

How very true and challenging. We also see sovereignty in play in his ministries in Australia leaving him at odds with both Arminian leaning believers and Hyper-Calvinists.

I also found Pinks views on education and finances to be edifying. Pink had no formal Bible/Seminary training and was a bit antagonistic toward it. While I am not against toward it in anyway, I think sometimes higher education can discourage lay people from deep reading of the scripture on their own or lead to acceptance of teaching based on credentials and not Biblical authority. As to finances Pink lived on a tight budget and never asked for money to support his ministries at times he even told people not to send money. How important it is for all Christians to examine the role of money in their lives.

It is sad to see the hurt that Pink dealt with in his failures to receive calls to pastor and preach in conference ministries. His isolationism and overly harsh critiques of organized religion are definitely not a proper reaction, but in returning to God’s sovereignty we see how it contributed to an increase in his written ministry. A ministry that continues to this day. The relation of the last week of Pink’s life is very encouraging as we see a man relying completely on Christ for his salvation and joyously looking forward to going to God’s kingdom.

The natural man has not one iota of holiness in him; rather he is horn with the seeds of every form of evil, radically inclined to sin. In our nature we are vileness itself, black as hell, and unless a miracle of grace is worked in us we must inevitably be damned for all eternity. It is not a case of man’s having a few imperfections; he is altogether polluted. “an unclean thing” with “no soundness” (Isa. 1:6). Not only has man no holiness, but his heart is inveterately averse to it.

The solemn doctrine of total depravity does not mean that there are no parents with genuine love for their children, and no children who respectfully obey their parents; that there are none imbued with a spirit of benevolence to the poor and kind sympathy for the suffering; that there are no conscientious employers or honest employees. But it does mean that, where the unregenerate are concerned, those duties are discharged without any love for God, any subjection to His authority, or any concern for His glory. Parents are required to bring up their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, and children are to obey their parents in the Lord (Eph. 6:1, 4). Servants are to serve their masters ‘’in singleness of heart, as unto Christ.’’ Do the unconverted comply with those injunctions? No, therefore their performances not only possess no spiritual value, but are polluted. Every act of the natural man is faulty. “The plowing of the wicked is sin” (Prov. 21:4) because it is for selfish ends. Then is it better not to plow at all? Wrong, for slothfulness is equally sinful. There are different degrees of enormity, but every act of man is sinful.

I thought it interesting that he does not take about ‘goodness’ but rather ‘holiness’ in regard to our depravity. When most people consider themselves or others ‘good’, what standard do they use? Not God’s perfect holiness but rather their own arbitrary standard. He also shows how it is the heart and not the action that matters to God, for the unregenerate perform their works “without any love for God, any subjection to His authority, or any concern for His glory” and that makes them sinful.

There is a far greater malignity in sin than is commonly supposed even by the majority of church members. Men regard it as an infirmity, and term it a human frailty or hereditary weakness. But Scripture calls it “an evil thing and bitter” (Jer. 2:19), an abominable thing which God hates (Jer. 44:4). Few people think of it thus; rather the majority regard it as a mere trifle, a matter of so little moment that all they have to do is cry in the hour of death, “Lord, pardon me; Lord, bless me,” and all will be eternally well with them. They judge sin by the opinion of the world. But what can a world which “lieth in wickedness” (I John 5:19) know about God’s hatred of sin? It does not matter what the world thinks, but it matters a great deal what God says about it. Others measure the guilt of sin by what conscience tells them—or fails to! But conscience needs informing by the Bible. Many uncivilized tribes have put their girl babies and old people to death, and conscience did not chide them. A deadened conscience has accompanied multitudes to hell without any voice of warning. Tens of thousands of religionists see so little filth in sin that they imagine a few tears will wash away its stain. They perceive so little criminality in it that they persuade themselves that a few good works will make full reparation for it.